- Keedy begins with a discussion of "the rules" of typography. I instantly thought about our discussion of writing's rules vs. genre expectations vs. throwing out all the rules. Keedy states that all typographers know the rules. They also know that rules are to be broken. Lastly, breaking the rules is one of the rules. I can't help thinking how this is true for all writing. When a writer breaks the rules for a rhetorical purpose, then we all find that perfectly acceptable (as comp teachers). But if a student breaks the rule out of ignorance, without knowledge of its rhetorical effect, then most of us can agreee that this would be "bad writing."
- The fear of new technology is that it will signal the end of "traditional typographic standards" (274). Instead, Keedy argues that the new technology will "reaffirm what works and modify what is outdated" (274). Again, this is true of all writing. In class discussions the "fear" can be palpable--if we aren't teaching "writing," then what are we teaching? But new media will not make "writing" obsolete. Instead, it will reaffirm what works and modify what is outdated.
- Zwart states that "the more uninteresting the letter, the more useful it is to the typographer" (274). Keedy interprets this to mean that Zwart was "for expression in composition" (274). What we write will always be of more importance than how we write it. Fancy technology cannot be a substitute for meaningful content, but it can enhance what a writer is attempting to communicate.
- Keedy writes, "Rejection or ignorance of the rich and varied history and traditions of typography are inexcusable; however, adherence to traditional concepts without regard to contemporary context is intellectually lazy and a threat to typography today" (275). Again, I will tie this to Thursday's discussion. Gina wants "writing" to mean the act of putting pen to paper; the generation of ideas in some type of "essay form." I agreed that there is a difference between writing and composing. While we need to respect this type of writing and its history, we also cannot ignore that the composition landscape is changing. If we don't recognize new media as a form of composition, composition itself is in jeopardy. I think this is the middle road that many of us were pushing for during the discussion.
The Power of Punctuation
If punctuation is used to clarify meaning, then we must pay attention to not only the mark itelf, but also the way it looks in a particular font. Solomon examines, for example, how the period looks different (and signifies a difference) when in different fonts. I think about this every time I type our emoticon. There are some fonts that do not translate the image properly.
- :l>2 This is Arial. I like this version because the mouth is straight and the hand is "unfancy."
- :I>2 This is Courier. There is no good representation of the mouth in this font.
- :l>2 This is Georgia. The lower case l or the upper case I both change the look of the mouth. The other symbols are also too low in relation to the mouth.
Solomon also discourages the use of punctuation for "the sake of design." This reminded me of Frances's rant against the prolific use of the exclamation point. When the punctuation is overused, it loses its meaning.
Repetition and the Rhetoric of Visual Design
I found Porter and Sullivan's discussion of the use of repetition in design very interesting (especially for a topic that I myself never think of). I wonder how many of us read the box on p. 293 before reading the page before it, and if so, why. I did read the box as soon as I turned to page 292. It was the first element that looked different, so it caught my eye. The *WARNING!* also begs to be noticed.
Rhetoric, Humanism, and Design
And just to highlight how connections are made in our brains, I have had "Bella Lugosi's Dead" stuck in my head for days now due to the mere mention of Bauhaus (the school of design, not the band) in this article.
2 comments:
I think this is the longest chunk of text anyone has posted Sarah. But then again, I should expect nothing less from the #1 GRAD STUDENT. I’ll just focus on your point that starts with “Keedy writes, "Rejection or ignorance of the rich and varied history and traditions of typography are inexcusable…” I was trying to compare my thought processes during the composition of the visual essay and written essays that I have done. For me, the visual essay felt more arbitrary. Of course I had things I wanted to convey, but the notion of “Play” comes into mind 10X’s stronger with a project like our midterm because I am not using language to describe it. For example, my use of tree’s in the project could mean numerous things to people in the class or mean nothing at all, although I had a more specific reason why I used them. There were no specific words to direct one’s interpretations. Yet, there is something overwhelmingly specific, complex, and concise about writing a piece, whether analytical, critical, etc., that can direct an audience towards a message one is trying to convey. Now this is of course problematic when considering reader response and “play” as the rich possibility of many interpretations in a text; but in regards Keedy, Gina’s “act of putting pen to paper” is significant when discussing the integration of new media within comp.
Sarah,
I was hooked to this point you made: "composition landscape is changing...If we don't recognize new media as a form of composition, composition itself is in jeopardy." My first reaction was, "Oh NO!" Could that be true? Well, I think you might be right...to a degree. I can imagine a world where pen and paper no longer exist, but I can't accept it. I have an emotional attachment to my pens and paper. . . Um, what I'm trying to say is, maybe composition won't be in jeopardy, but it's advancement will be. All those who will store away their pens in glass cases will ensure that composition stays on the tactile page (how long those people will last, I don't know). The old has always mingled in with the new. But I'll still definitely keep this issue in mind.
Post a Comment